Originally Posted by
DannyInvincible
I think there's an important distinction. For me, abuse would amount to illegally breaking a rule or, as you also mention, misusing it contrary to its obvious origins or intended purpose. The term "exploit" can indeed, and often does, have generally negative connotations, but I don't see why this should necessarily be so. It can simply mean to utilise a rule to its fullest extent; that would be completely legal and certainly would not amount to abuse in my eyes. It has long been said that the FAI exploit the "granny rule", for example. I don't see why that need be interpreted as objectionable or disparaging, nor is there any question that what the FAI are doing amounts to abuse when they select players with Irish grandparentage.
The second route he refers to is rugby's equivalent of the "granny rule" though, is it not? He says that rule has been abused in the past. He refers to the three-year residency rule as being abused/exploited separately. Just because exploitation of a rule might have seemingly inequitable consequences doesn't necessarily mean there is abuse afoot. Some competitors are better positioned to take advantage of certain rules over other competitors. That's generally the nature of sport and why some competitors, or the wealthier unions in this instance, are better than others; they're better equipped to play within the set framework. What is the IRB's reading of the situation here though? Aren't the rules being utilised as intended, albeit more aggressively or profitably by richer competitors? If Thornley has an issue with that, he should surely condemn the legislators; not those who are doing what they're permitted, or even expected, to do. It's not the responsibility of better-equipped competitors to try and create a more even playing field.
Bookmarks